What is Amiya Bala Paul v. CIT authority for?

The Assessing Officer cannot make additions to income solely based on a Valuation Officer's report under Section 55A or 142(2), particularly for unexplained investments or expenditure under Section 69B, as the AO is the primary fact-finding authority (this was the position pre-Section 142A).

How many judgments cite Amiya Bala Paul v. CIT?

67 judgments on BharatTax cite Amiya Bala Paul v. CIT (262 ITR 407), spanning 2007 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Amiya Bala Paul v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 148, Section 142A, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 69, Section 69A.

Amiya Bala Paul v. CIT (262 ITR 407)

DILIPSINH RANJITSINH CHAUHAN,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No. 1 relating to reopening is not adjudicated, and Ground No

ITA 1542/AHD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumbhare, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…ibuted the deposits to the assessee himself. The CIT(A) held that mere assertion or self-serving statements could not displace the statutory presumption under section 69A in the absence of corroboration. He also placed reliance on Smt. Amiya Bala Paul v. CIT (262 ITR 407) (SC) and a recent decision of ITAT Rajkot Bench in Kantilal Lallubhai Shah v. ITO [2024] 151 taxmann.com 230, wherein similar addition of cash deposits was upheld. Consequently, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 13,01,000/- made by the AO and dismissed the appeal. 2.7 Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal be…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KANPUR., KANPUR vs. M/S. SUSHRUT INSTITUTE OF PLASTIC SURGERY PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW

The appeal of the Department stands dismissed whereas the Cross Objection of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 30/LKW/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. M/S Sushrut Institute Of Plastic Central Circle 2 Surgery Private Limited Kanpur 29, Shahmeena Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaics2582G (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.15/Lkw/2023 [Arising Out Of Ita No.30/Lkw/2023] Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Sushrut Institute Of Plastic V. The Acit Surgery Private Limited Central Circle 2 29, Shahmeena Road Kanpur Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaics2582G (Cross - Objector) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 115BSection 133ASection 142ASection 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 271ASection 36(1)(va)Section 69Section 69A

…unt expected in making the investment exceeds the amount recorded on the books. The issue of referring to the Valuation Officer, came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Amiya Bala Paul Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong, (2003) 262 ITR 407 (SC). The Supreme Court, after considering the scope and ambit of Section 55A of the Act, was pleased to hold that it would not apply to proceedings under Section 69B of the Act. Apparently, it appears that Section 142A of the Act was introduced to cover this omission. The question before us is whether the Tribunal was right in taking a view tha…

MOHAN GARG,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, FARIDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 964/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandramohan Garg Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-2 H. No. 905, Sector-15, Faridabad S.O. Faridabad, Haryana Sector-16A Faridabad, Haryana – 121003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahlpg2577N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ayush Garg, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Sanjeev Kaushal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.05.2025

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 142ASection 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…xcess expenditure incurred by the assessee in construction of the house. Apart from the above consideration, the question of valuation of expenses is the subject of binding decisions of this court. The Supreme Court had, in Smt. Amiya Bala Paul v. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 407 (of course dealing with powers of the AO to refer the question of valuation, pre-Section 142-A, but in the context of the then prevailing Section 55-A and Section 142 (2)) held that no addition could be made by the AO, exclusively relying upon the value arrived at by the DVO. It was held that: "11. The common feature of Sections 133(6) and 142(2…

OM PRAKASH SINGH,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 114/ALLD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad27 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Om Prakash Singh, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 147A/2, Tagore Town, J.L.N. Income Tax, Central Circle, Road, Allahabad, U.P. Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Aiepp0574G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Adv Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-, Lucknow-3, Dated 11.07.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:- “1. Because Proceeding Under Section 147 Of The Act By Issuance Of Notice Dated 30.03.2021 Under Section 148 On The Basis Of D.V.O. Report His Only Erroneous & Bad, Assessment Order Dated 23.03.2022 Passed In Consequence Of Said Proceeding Is Wholly Without Jurisdiction, Accordingly, The Entire Proceeding In Consequence Of Notice Dated 30.03.2021 Are Vitiated & Not Maintainable. Without Prejudice To The Aforesaid 2. Because The Addition Of Rs.9,26,796/- Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer On Account Of Alleged Difference In The Valuation Of Office Building Between The Value Appearing In The Audited Books Of Account As Compared To The Valuation Made By The D.V.O., As Also Confirm By The Id. Cit(A), Is Wholly Erroneous As The Report Of The Valuation Officer Is An Estimate & The Same

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

…on’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT-2, Lucknow vs. Sangam Builders (2013) 40 taxman.com 450 (Allahabad) wherein the Hon’ble High Court had held that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Amiya Bala Paul vs. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 407 (SC) had been nullified by the insertion of section 142A and therefore, additions could be made on the basis of reference made to the DVO. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sundar Carpet Industries vs. ITO [210] 324 ITR 417 (Allahabad) wherein it had been held that the DVO’s report constituted…